Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2000 Planning Commission Minutes ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Daniel Kluth, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Jay Nygard, and Janice Berg. Commissioners Daniel Kluth and Sandra Smith were absent. The following represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, City Council Members Bob Sansevere and Barb Peterson were present. Chair Elizabeth Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS (#1) #2486 ELAINE ERICKSON, 1270 SPRUCE PLACE -VARIANCES, 6:31 p.m. -6:46 p.m. • Elaine Erickson, Applicant, Nancy Anderson, Daughter, and Jeff Olson, Son, and Al Hirsch, Contractor, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants appeared before the Planning Commission at their February 14, 2000 meeting where the application was tabled to allow the Applicants time to redesign and move the proposed residence to conform more with Orono's zoning code. The Applicants have submitted revised plans which eliminates the need for a hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback area, a variance to lot coverage and the conditional use permit. A variance is still required for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. The proposed residence and deck have been relocated outside of the 0-75' setback area. Bottenberg noted the walkway and steps in the 0-75' setback area will remain, which will keep the hardcover at the existing amount. Bottenberg stated the proposed residence and garage consist of 1,499.5 square feet, which is slightly smaller than originally proposed, with the second story deck having been moved to the lower level. The proposed changes keep the residence under the allowed 1,500 square feet and eliminates the need for a variance to lot coverage. Bottenberg stated a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is need required to allow 46.93 percent hardcover in this area, with existing hardcover in this area being 27.58 percent, with 25 percent being allowed. Nancy Anderson stated they are trying to accomplish this project in accordance with Orono's codes as much as possible. Erickson requested that she be allowed to construct a small deck on the proposed residence. Erickson commented she has lived in the existing home for the past 25 years and would like • to continue to enjoy her view of the lake. Erickson stated they have scaled down the house as much as possible, noting she is not able to walk up and down stairs which necessitates the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 i (#2486 Elaine Erickson, Continued) need for a one-level home. Anderson commented her mother did have polio as a child. Hawn inquired whether a conditional use permit is still needed for grading within five feet of the property lines. Bottenberg stated a conditional use permit is still required for the grading. Hawn inquired whether there was any further information regarding the removal of a wall. Anderson stated they have not really addressed that issue, noting that the block wall exists along the property line and is partially covered with dirt. Anderson stated the neighbors are waiting to see what happens with this application prior to commencing any work on their property. Anderson stated in her view she does not anticipate the neighbors would be opposed to grading in the area of the property line. Anderson noted the neighbors are currently in Florida. Lindquist inquired whether the deck would be constructed on the lower level. Bottenberg indicated the proposed deck is to be constructed on the lower level of the house. Hawn noted the Planning Commission is generally very strict in enforcing its structural coverage limits. • Anderson commented they have reduced the house as much as possible, with the goal of the project to provide one-floor living for her mother. Stoddard noted there were some issues of concern raised by City Staff. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant has a problem with relocation of the well. Anderson stated they do not. Anderson stated the sheds will be removed as well. Hawn noted this is a small, strangely configured lot. Hawn indicated the reasoning behind the limit on the structural coverage was to help protect the lakeshore and runoff into the lake, which sometimes creates hardships for the property owners. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant was aware of the issues of concern outlined in the Planner's Report. Anderson stated she was. Hawn stated they will need the consent of the adjoining neighbor in order for the conditional use permit to be approved. Anderson stated in her view the neighbors are in agreement that some grading work needs to be completed in that area in order to address the drainage problems currently being experienced. There were no public comments regarding this application. • Lindquist stated he would not have a problem making approval subject to the conditions outlined Paget ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2486 Elaine Erickson, Continued) in the Planner's Report. Weinberger stated typically the Applicant needs to submit drainage and grading plans for this property for review and approval by the City Engineer. Anderson commented the application process has been an expensive one. Anderson stated the drainage currently is a problem and anything would be an improvement over what currently exists. Anderson noted they will take the appropriate steps to comply with the conditions. Hawn stated the City would like to see the Applicant achieve the best results possible with the improvements made to the drainage. Weinberger recommended the Applicant work with their own engineer regarding the drainage and grading, with their plans being submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval. Anderson stated they will comply with the conditions requested by the City. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2486, Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place, granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback area and a conditional use permit to allow grading within five feet of the property line, and further subject to the five conditions outlined in the April 17, 2000 Planner's Report, with the grading and drainage plans being submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the Applicant appearing before the City Council. • VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) #2513 CONNIE PIEPHO, 540 NORTH ARM DRIVE -VARIANCES, 6:47 p.m. -6:59 p.m. Connie Piepho, Applicant, and Mike Mulvany, Contractor, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has appeared twice before the Planning Commission with a request to construct an inground swimming pool within the average lakeshore setback. The pool could not be placed on the property without relocating a future septic drainfield site. The septic site would be required to be shifted 30 feet to the north, which results in the site being located within 75' of the water supply well on an adjacent property. The Applicants were requested to revise the plan and find an alternative site for the pool. The second plan proposed to have the pool located on the other side of the property. However, City Staff had some concerns about the location of the pool in this area due to the close proximity to the adjacent residence. The Planning Commission tabled that proposal to allow the Applicant and the adjacent property owner time to discuss their options further. Weinberger stated the plan before the Planning Commission tonight is proposing to locate the pool as reflected in their first proposal, which allows the Applicants two options. Option one is to enter into an agreement with the adjacent property owners that would require the Applicant to pay to relocate the neighbor's well should it become necessary to replace the septic to the alternate site. This would be accomplished by having money being placed in escrow to relocate the well. This agreement is acceptable to both parties. Weinberger stated the second option available to the parties is for the City of Orono to grant a variance to the septic code and permit a drainfield site to be located less than 75' from the neighbor's • well but not less than the State requirement of 50'. Weinberger stated the affected property owner will need to be contacted regarding this option prior to a variance being issued. Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) Weinberger stated option two appears to be the best option for the parties since it has the least impact on the adjacent residences. City Staff is recommending approval of the application with a variance being granted to the septic code. Piepho stated she has spoken with both neighbors who have indicated they would prefer to have a variance to the septic code. Piepho stated she understands they will need to be contacted personally in regards to this proposal. Mike Mulvany, Contractor, stated in his view option two is the best choice. Hawn commented she is hesitant in granting a variance to the City's septic code, noting that Orono's septic code is more stringent than the State's. Hawn stated the Planning Commission should take into consideration any possible health concerns that may result by granting the variance. Hawn stated in her view a variance should not be granted if it compromises someone's health. Hawn commented she is not aware of the reasons for the City's 75' requirement versus the State's 50'. Weinberger stated Septic Inspector Pence has indicated that part of the reason for the 75' setback is that residences were being located 75' from the septic site, and when additions were added to the homes, they would generally involve the need for a variance to the septic site. Weinberger indicated the State of Minnesota has determined that a 50' setback from a well is appropriate. Weinberger stated City Staff will be looking at reducing the 75' setback requirement to 50' to conform to the State standard. • Gaffron indicated the reasons City Staff will be reviewing this issue in the near future is because it has been determined that there are no health issues that would be impacted by having a 50' setback versus a 75' setback; two, the State currently has the right to issue well permits; three, well contractors typically go out and only meet the 50' setback, with the City not being notified until after the well is in that the 75' setback has not been met. Gaffron stated it is difficult to enforce a 75' setback when there are no health concerns at issue. Gaffron stated he would recommend going to the 50' setback, with elimination of the City's 75' requirement. Stoddard commented he does not have a problem with a 50' setback and would be in favor of option two. Berg and Lindquist indicated they would also be in favor of option two. Hawn noted approval of this proposal would be contingent upon approval by the neighbors. Weinberger stated discussions have been held with the adjoining neighbors who have indicated very clearly that they are willing to work with the Applicant on this proposal. Weinberger noted City Staff currently does not have their approval in writing, which will need to be obtained. Hawn commented it was her understanding the primary septic site is in very good shape at this point in time. Piepho stated the septic site is only six years old and is in good shape. • There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2513, Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Drive, to permit construction of an inground swimming pool within the average lakeshore setback, and to grant a variance to the septic code and permit a drainfield site to be located less than 75'from the neighbor's well, subject to the neighbors'approval in writing prior to work being commenced on this project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2549 DAVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISLAND - REQUEST FOR DOCK ACCESS, 7:00 p.m. - 7:37 p.m. David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated this item appeared before the Planning Commission on November 15, 1999, where it was tabled to allow the Big Island property owners time to review the options and hopefully reach a neighborhood consensus of a dock location, with this issue being resolved by mid April. Gaffron stated City Staff has not been informed of any consensus from the neighborhood, with the City being obligated at this time to resolve this issue for the Applicant. Gaffron stated the plat of Moorse Island Park, which is the eastern half of the island, created a number of lakeshore lots, a number of inland lots, an interior right-of-way system with a number of alleys, roads and public areas extending from it to the lakeshore. All of these right-of-ways were donated and dedicated to the public use forever on the original 1887 plat. Gaffron stated it is his opinion the only reason the rights-of-way were platted this way was to provide for access to and • from the lake. These platted corridors exist today as undeveloped walking trails, which on occasion have been used for vehicular access. Gaffron noted some of these pathways are outside the dedicated right-of-ways, with the majority of the right-of-way boundaries not being visibly marked. However, utilities are generally located within the right-of-ways on Big Island. Gaffron stated Orono's zoning code recognizes the special access needs for Big Island inland lots and established regulations for where and how the island right-of-ways may be used. These regulations apply only to the RS District and not to the mainland. Lakeshore property owners with inaccessible shorelines may also need lake access. Inland lot owners need a place to land a boat in the summer. It is not unreasonable to provide a location where inland lot owners can dock a boat for extended periods while they are on the Island. However, owners of lots abutting the lakeshore should not be burdened with providing this access to the inland owners, while at the same time inland lot owners should not have the ability to hinder the public's use of the right-of-ways or access points. Gaffron stated City Staff has reviewed each and every one of the access points found on Big Island. Tonight's application deals with providing access to Parcel 2. Gaffron noted only two of the nine access points are suited for vehicular access, with Access Point C being 90'wide and Access Point H being 16'wide. Gaffron stated due to topography issues, the other access points are unsuitable for vehicular access. Access Points A and B are located on the north end and are fairly remote from most of the properties it could serve. Gaffron stated Access Point C is wide enough to accommodate a small number of conforming setback seasonal docks for inland owners while not blocking vehicular access. This right-of-way is the widest and historically the most used vehicular access for the Island and has an informally established dirt road leading to the interior right-of-ways. Gaffron stated the City's surveyors have • finished their review of Big Island this afternoon and have determined that the undeveloped roadway Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) is located primarily on the Uran property. Gaffron indicated he has not viewed the site since the survey stakes were placed. Gaffron stated Access Point D is 50 feet wide, with a portion being vacated in approximately the 1950s. This access point is not suitable for vehicle access and has merging lot lines. LMCD code requires a ten foot setback, with this area potentially only being able to have a five foot setback due to the merging lot lines. Gaffron stated there is a potential for two lots to be located in this area, with no defined pathway. Gaffron stated Access Point E is not suitable for vehicular access and would require a substantial stairway system due to the steep bank in the area. Access Points F and F-2 require additional survey work to determine whether the right-of-way currently extends to the shoreline. Access G is steep but would provide a relatively pedestrian friendly access point. Access Point H has a very narrow right-of-way capable of vehicle access but has suffered severe erosion over the years from over-use and abuse. Due to its narrow width, this access point is too narrow to have a dock that would meet LMCD's minimum setback requirements while still maintaining usability for vehicles. Gaffron stated in conclusion it his opinion that the two most viable access points would be Access Point C or Access Point D, which are both wide enough to permit more than one dock. Gaffron stated he would not recommend docks at any of the other possible access points. Gaffron stated due to the erosion being experienced at Access H, he would recommend the Public Works Department look at the situation to see what restoration would be appropriate and to limit its access by erecting a chain or gate. Gaffron noted there currently are vehicles on Big Island, which will need to be looked into further. • Gaffron stated it is City Staff's recommendations, one, that inland parcels 1 and 2 be allowed dock access at Access C; two, inland parcel 3 continue to be allowed a dock access at Access D; three, inland parcels 4 through 8 should be assigned future access at Access D if they request it, subject to LMCD regulations; four, inland parcel 9 could be served by a dock at either Access D or Access E; five, accesses A, B, F, G, and H do not readily lend themselves to providing dock access to inland lots and should therefore remain dock-free; and six, access H has a recent severe erosion problem which needs to be addressed, and may result in gating or closure of that access by the City for all but emergency and incidental service vehicle uses. Lovelace indicated his view of the situation is basically the same as what he stated in November Lovelace stated one of the original proposals was to allow him access through Access Point C. Lovelace indicated the neighbors have attempted to resolve this issue but were unable to reach a firm consensus on where access should be. Hawn indicated that some members of the Planning Commission have had an opportunity to tour Big Island. Hawn commented in her view Access Point C seems to make the most sense. Lovelace inquired whether it was City Staff's proposal to have two docks located at Access C. Gaffron indicated separate docks could be provided for Lovelace and Scheftel at Access C. Scheftel indicated she would prefer to have only one dock at that location and would not object to sharing a dock with Lovelace. Mrs. Uran stated she would not be in favor of improving the road since the majority of the roadway lies within their property and they would prefer to limit the amount of traffic on the road. • Lindquist inquired whether the Urans are in agreement with Staff's recommendations. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) Mrs. Uran stated she is in agreement with the recommendations, but questioned whether both dock and vehicle access need to be provided at separate locations since vehicle access is only possible during the winter months. Gaffron stated the City needs to address permanent dock access for the inland lots. Hawn commented the City is looking at the topography and the suitability of the land in order to provide access to the inland lots. Mr. Uran stated he has concerns about people traveling over his land to gain access to the inland lots. Gaffron stated the City needs to take steps to address the erosion in this area as well as how to access the inland lots. Gaffron reiterated that Access Point C is wide enough to accommodate two docks. Gaffron noted that he only became aware of the location of the roadway this afternoon, which will need to be further addressed. Mr. Uran inquired how access relating to construction on Big Island will be handled. Gaffron stated that issue will also need to be further addressed, noting that they are primarily looking at providing an access point to enable the inland property access to their land. Hawn commented there are other issues on Big Island that need to be addressed as well relating to • the amount of debris and vehicles on the Island. Hawn stated the residents of Big Island need to comply with Orono's standards as well as the residents on the mainland. Mrs. Uran commented that the two are separate and should not be compared. Hawn reiterated that the residents of Big Island need to take care of the Island. Hawn inquired whether the Urans would be in favor of one dock or two docks at Access C. Mrs. Uran stated she would prefer one dock at this location. Hawn stated in her view it appears that both Lovelace and Scheftel are entitled to their own dock at Access Point C. Scheftel stated she is willing to share a dock with Lovelace. Hawn questioned whether the City is looking at insuring the rights of each individual property owner to have access to its own dock. Gaffron stated it is the City's intent to provide a public accessway to the inland properties, and whether it happens via one dock per property owner or a shared dock will require the property owners to comply with whatever the City deems to be appropriate. John Eiden, 330 Big Island, inquired whether Access Point D would be acceptable. Gaffron stated this is a possible future access point on the south end of the island, but due to the merging lot lines, there may not be sufficient room to have more than two docks at this location. • Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) Hawn inquired whether City Staff is looking to provide access to all the inland properties at this time or just for Lovelace. Gaffron stated the application tonight is to arrive at an access point for Lovelace. John Erickson commented that although Access Points G and H are not ideal, they were apparently at one time intended to provide access and should not be closed off. Erickson stated the City should take some steps to improve those access points. Gaffron stated there are some potential issues that exist with those access points as it relates to setback requirements by the LMCD. Gaffron stated if there is a need for vehicle access and a dock, there is not sufficient room to allow both. Mrs. Uran reiterated that vehicle access is only necessary during the winter months, noting that vehicles supposedly are not allowed on Big Island. Gaffron stated the City apparently has never officially banned vehicles from Big Island. Mayor Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, stated there is the misperception that he is involved in this situation, noting that his property is located near Access Point H, which is not in close proximity to Access Point C. Jabbour stated due to the ten foot setback requirement that must be met on both sides of the dock, it is not permissible to have a dock at this location unless a hardship is demonstrated and a variance is approved. Jabbour stated it is his opinion the road located near • Access Point H should stay open to allow for access to other properties and that the road near Access Point G that is depicted on the map is very impassable and simply does not exist. Jabbour pointed out the City must comply with the LMCD requirements in providing an access point to the inland property owners. Erickson stated it is his view that if the road has been platted, it should stay platted. Gaffron stated if the City decides to vacate a road, the road is no longer dedicated to public right-of- way and goes back to the adjoining property owner. Gaffron stated the City does not have any intention of vacating the road near Access Point H. Mayor Jabbour stated in his view it would be bad public policy to close that road, noting he is in favor of keeping the road open. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist stated it is his personal feeling there will be future requests for docks on Big Island, and recommended going with Staff's recommendations one and two. Berg stated she would like to see two docks if so desired. Hawn commented she would like to see two docks at Access Point C. Stoddard suggested removing recommendation number five, with that item being addressed in the future. Stoddard stated he is okay with the other recommendations of City Staff. • Nygard indicated he is in favor of City Staffs recommendations. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2549, David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, request for dock access, per City Staff's recommendations one and two as outlined in the April 12, 2000 Planner's Report and as follows: One, Inland Parcels 1 and 2 (Scheftel, Lovelace) should be allowed dock access at Access C; and two, Inland Parcel 3 should continue to be allowed a dock access at Access D. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn inquired whether the residents of Big Island would be interested in having a garbage barge arranged. Lovelace stated he would be very interested in having a garbage barge come to the Island, noting he has spoken with his neighbors on Big Island who have indicated they would be willing to help clean up the Island. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 7:38 p.m. -7:59 p.m. Greg Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January meeting where the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application due to concerns relating to • the City's comprehensive plan, water quality of Lake Minnetonka, the proposed non-conforming use, and the height of the building. Hennepin County has submitted a revised proposal for the salt and sand storage facility which has reduced the height of the storage building to 20 feet from the proposed 42 feet. The proposed building would be 60' by 120' in size, still requiring a variance for an oversized accessory building. The County has indicated they have explored other options for the site, but at this time it is not feasible to relocate the entire site. Weinberger noted the salt and sand that would be stored in the shed is already being stored on the site, either in the existing building or outdoors. Most of the material must be delivered in the evening or overnight, with some limited daytime deliveries. Weinberger stated a Zoning Code Amendment is necessary to allow the maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1C zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, which has resulted in a legal non-conforming use of the property. A variance to permit hardcover within the 500-1000' setback from the OHWI of Lake Minnetonka is needed. The amount of hardcover proposed would result in a reduction of hardcover from 61 percent to 57 percent. Weinberger noted 35 percent hardcover is allowed in this area. A variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an accessory structure is also required on this application. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is also necessary to permit grading on the proeprty and construction of the stormwater management pond. Chock stated they have attempted to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, noting the height of the building has been reduced. • Nowlan stated the proposed building would have an open face on the south side to allow for Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 S (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) maneuvering of the trailers in and out of the building. In response to an inquiry by a concerned citizen, Chock stated the proposed building will be a masonry style building. Paul Larson, 3877 Shoreline Drive, expressed concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the non-conforming of this property. Larson inquired where the milfoil harvesters will be stored once the building is constructed. Nowlan stated the harvesters would be located in the northwest corner of the lot. Larson also raised concerns regarding noise and the amount of traffic that will be produced as a result of this operation, noting that this is primarily a residential area and is not the ideal spot for this facility. Larson requested the Planning Commission consider placing restrictions on the operation during the nighttime hours. Larson commented in his opinion the site should also be cleaned up of debris and fallen trees. Berg inquired whether the services would be expanded at all as a result of the new building. Chock stated they would like to store their materials inside the new facility and eliminate the after hours deliveries of salt. Nowlan pointed out there are a few other businesses along County Road 15, which help shield this • facility from the neighborhood, as well as a number of trees. Stoddard stated in his view some consideration should be given by the Planning Commission to the public use of the facility. Stoddard indicated he is not in favor of expanding the non-conforming use nor is he in favor of granting a hardcover variance on this property. Stoddard thanked the Applicants for reducing the height of the building to 20 feet. Hawn stated she is in agreement with Stoddard, noting she has additional concerns regarding salt and sand runoff into the lake and wetlands in the area. Hawn noted the City has made a commitment to upgrade the residential area of Navarre and that she would have a difficult time approving this application. Lindquist stated he is not in favor of granting any variances on this property. Berg stated in her view this is not the proper location for this building. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend denial of Application #2555, Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive,for a Zoning Code Amendment,Variances, Vacation, and Commercial Site Plan due to the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed expansion of a non-conforming use on this property, and it is considered an expansion of a non-conforming use. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE -VARIANCES, 8:00 p.m. -8:32 p.m. William Dampier, Applicant, was present. • Gaffron stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission at their March meeting Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 s (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) where they recommended denial of this application based on excessive lot coverage. Staff has had a number of discussions regarding this application in which the Applicant has suggested some alternative methods for revising the nature of the deck to enable it to be defined as non-structural for lot coverage purposes. The Applicant is proposing to add a retaining wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would technically allow removal of the deck railing, which currently is about nine feet above grade at its highest point. The majority of the deck is less than six feet above grade, and would be entirely less than six feet above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. If the deck is not included in the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed addition becomes conforming at 14.9 percent. A railing may be removed if the deck is less than 30 inches at the perimeter. The Applicant is proposing to raise the grade to make the deck less than six feet above grade and therefore it would no longer be considered as structural coverage. Gaffron stated construction of a retaining wall would require a variance since a section of the deck is approximately three to four feet from the property line. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should also consider whether the existing deck with railing constitutes visual bulk and massing of structure to the extent that it should be included in lot coverage. If the Planning Commission does not feel it should be included in the total lot coverage, one option is to recommend approval of the retaining wall/railing removal concept, which would eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Another option would be to recommend approval of the variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the proposal with the deck left in its present condition with the finding that there is justification/hardship for a lot coverage variance. • Dampier stated he understands the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend removal of his deck, noting when the deck was replaced he was led to believe that he was in compliance, which has since been found to be erroneous. Dampier stated with removal of the deck, he would be left with an area where the ground cover is very sparce due to the amount of shading as well as the established root systems from a number of trees in the area. Dampier stated his neighbor has addressed this same problem by placing down plastic underlayment with rock. Dampier commented he has attempted to grow grass in this area as well as experimenting with various plants and ground cover that tolerate shade well, which has not met with much success. Removal of the deck would also result in the premature death of two to three trees in the area. Dampier stated by constructing the retaining walls and planter system, he would be able to address the drainage problems that he is currently experiencing. Dampier stated his proposal to raise the ground level addresses the issue of lot coverage and is a possible solution to his problem. Dampier indicated he is attempting to find a solution to this situation and address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Lindquist inquired whether the proposal by Dampier was to leave the deck as is, remove the railing, and construct a retaining wall system with planters. Dampier stated it is. Hawn noted the Applicant is proposing to build up the ground elevation which would make the deck less than six feet off ground level. Dampier stated the railing is above six feet, with only the northwest corner of the deck consisting • of approximately one square foot being over six feet in elevation. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 • (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) Stoddard commented he likes the efforts the Applicant is taking to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage. Stoddard inquired whether the deck could be shifted over to the left and brought down lower to address some possible safety issues due to elimination of the railing. Dampier stated his only access to the lakeside section of his property is through a narrow section that exists in that area. Dampier stated he has already lost two trees as a result of the big storm that occurred in this area several years ago and he would like to avoid losing additional trees. Stoddard suggested the Applicant consult with an arborist about the placement of fill in the area of the trees. Dampier stated he has spoken with a landscape architect who has indicated the trees will survive with the amount of fill he is proposing in this area. Hawn commented in her view raising the elevation of the ground level is a contrived solution and defeats the purpose of the ordinance. Hawn stated in her view the amount of mass being suggested with this latest proposal is actually greater than what currently exists and would also place the mass closer to the adjoining neighbor. Hawn suggested the Applicant consider a two-level deck with a stairway. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to have a map depicting the proposed changes to the deck and ground level. Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission would have any objection to the deck being removed. • Hawn indicated she would not. Dampier reiterated if the deck is removed, he would be left with bare ground level in this area. Hawn stated it is her feeling the Applicant could still have a deck in this location. Lindquist inquired whether a portion of the deck could be removed. Dampier stated he would rather remove the entire deck than a portion of the deck. Dampier stated if the deck is lowered, he will be endangering some of the trees in the area. Dampier stated due to the costs he has already incurred, he is committed to this project, noting he would be willing to remove the deck if there was no other choice. Lindquist stated it appears the Planning Commission is looking for the Applicant to eliminate at least a portion of the deck, noting the planter system does add more mass to the property. Berg commented in her view the Planning Commission should take into consideration what the Applicant will be left with if the deck is removed. Hawn stated in her view an acceptable plan can be reached. Dampier commented in his opinion he has compromised on this proposal as much as possible. Lindquist remarked the Applicant will need to readdress the issues relating to the deck once more. Berg stated the Planning Commission does not have the ability to design a deck for the Applicant. • Berg stated the Applicant will also need to look at the impacts the removal of the deck will have on Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) drainage and landscaping. Dampier stated in his view his neighbor would rather not have the deck removed due to the erosion and water runoff problem that will be created. Stoddard commented he is in favor of the Applicant having a deck, but he would prefer the north side be brought in somewhat to eliminate safety concerns. Hawn recommended the Applicant redesign his deck. Hawn stated she has a concern regarding the size of the planter system being proposed. Stoddard indicated he is okay with Gaffron's recommendation on this project. Lindquist stated he also is okay with Gaffron's recommendation. Hawn stated she would like to see the amount of mass being proposed reduced rather than increased. Hawn stated in her view it appears the members of the Planning Commission would like to see the deck brought in from the north somewhat, but that the Applicant needs to submit a revised drawing illustrating exactly what is being proposed. Nygard indicated he is in agreement with Gaffron's recommendation. Dampier pointed out if the deck is considered structural coverage, he would not be entitled to have • a deck. Hawn stated she would like to see the height of the deck as low as possible, with the planter system being as low as possible as well. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like to have his application tabled. Dampier indicated he would like it tabled. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to table Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2567 WALFRED PROPERTIES, 2380 and 2364 SHADYWOOD ROAD, 3326 NAVARRE LANE AND ADDRESS UNASSIGNED (17-117-23 44 0078),ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, VARIANCES, VACATION AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN, 8:33 p.m. -9:03 p.m. Tom Reinen, Project Architect, and Bob Weigert, Project Engineer, were present on behalf of Walfred Properties. Weinberger stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission at its March meeting and before the City Council at its April 10th meeting where direction was provided to the Applicant. The Applicants originally were proposing a two story building, with the first floor being a retail Snyder Drug operation and the second floor being clinic use, with 28 underground parking stalls. • The City Council provided some direction to the Applicants and requested this matter be reviewed Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2567 Walfred Properties, Continued) again by the Planning Commission. The City Council expressed concerns relating to the size of the proposed building, which was approximately 12,000 square feet and required a total of 105 parking spaces on the property. The removal of the second story reduced the number of parking spaces required on the property to 60, which eliminated a total of 17 parking stalls outdoors and the 28 underground parking stalls. Removal of the second story results in a building consisting of approximately 11,900 square feet. Weinberger stated the benefits from reducing the total size of the building results in lower usage of the property, less traffic, and less hardcover. This property is located within the shoreland area, with the northern one-third and southern one-third of the property being located within 1,000 feet of the lakeshore. Variances are still necessary on this property with the revised proposal, although hardcover has been reduced and green space increased. Weinberger stated the second issue the City Council provided direction on was to revise the proposed trail on the property due to concerns expressed by the Park Commission. A trail was originally to connect Olive Avenue to Shadywood Road. The Park Commission had recommended consideration of a pedestrian trail between this property and the Culver's site. The benefit to a trail in this location is that it will provide a direct connection between the Olive neighborhood and the controlled intersection of Shadywood and Shoreline Drive, which provides a safer access than the northern entrance. The trail also requires construction of a retaining wall along the pond, with the height of the retaining wall being determined following submission of a grading plan for the site. Weinberger noted the height of the building is reduced from 30 feet to 23 feet for this site. Proposed • signage for this site does conform with City standards for the B-1 district, which allows 380 square feet. The Planning Commission at its March meeting had recommended that the proposed drug store use become a permitted or conditional use in the B-5 District. Variances are required to permit hardcover greater than 35 percent in the north 500-1000'shoreland setback and to permit greater than 35 percent hardcover in the south 500-1000' shoreland setback. A conditional use permit is required to allow grading within five feet of the property line. Tom Reinen stated they have attempted to address the concerns raised by the City Council and has revised their plans in accordance with their recommendations. Reinen stated the overall green space area has been increased by the elimination of 17 outdoor parking spaces. Reinen stated one issue that still needs to be addressed is the location of the bike/pedestrian path. With the elimination of the parking along the north/west part of the property, the green space in that area has been increased to 30 feet. Reinen stated they would like to locate the trail in that area as originally proposed since it would be a more pedestrian friendly area to work with than what they originally had. Hawn inquired whether the developer had considered relocating some of the parking area to the area where they are now proposing the bike trail to accommodate the recommendations of the Park Commission. Reinen stated they have not considered that option, with that area being considered as a buffer section between the residential area and the B-5 area. Lindquist inquired whether the grade of the proposed trail will still be 10 to 11 percent if constructed • on the northern part. Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2567 Walfred Properties, Continued) Reinen stated it would be. Reinen stated as it exists now, there is a fairly significant slope. Lindquist inquired whether there will be a stairway constructed in the area of the slope. Reinen stated there are no plans to have steps at this time. Hawn inquired how people will be prevented from taking a shortcut to Culver's if the trail is located in the area the developer is now proposing. Reinen stated there are significant enough wetlands in the area that would deter people from cutting across that area. Reinen stated additional plantings could also be added in that area as a deterent as well as a fence. There were no public comments regarding this application. Stoddard commented he liked the proposed changes by the developer, noting he is in favor of a drugstore at this location. Stoddard stated the issues remaining appear to be minor and can be addressed prior to final plat approval. Stoddard commented he would like to see the architectural appearance of the building blend in more with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Reinen indicated the structure is broken up with the placement of windows. Stoddard stated he would like the developer to give some additional thought to the type of • materials being utilized on this building. Hawn inquired whether all of the underground parking is being eliminated with the revised proposal. Reinen indicated they have eliminated the elevator and the underground parking. Lindquist noted the pedestrian trail still needs to be addressed. Reinen stated the City Engineer did express some concerns regarding the utilities, and inquired what concerns need to be addressed in that regard. Weinberger stated the City Engineer had concerns because the footings and the trail will be located over the utility lines. Weinberger stated if there is a problem with the utilities, the trail would need to be removed for a period of time and then later on reconstructed. Weinberger noted there is also a concern with the proposed trail only being five feet as opposed to the standard eight feet. Reinen stated with the previous proposal the pervious percentages were 29.7 percent, with the impervious being 70.3 percent. With the latest proposal, the pervious is improved to approximately 33.2 percent, with impervious being reduced to 66.8 percent. Hawn stated the hardcover could be further reduced with construction of the underground parking. Reinen stated in their view underground parking would not be practical. Gaffron stated two issues with the trail alignment are bothersome in that, one, there is a crossing point in the middle of a parking lot as opposed to along the street or sidewalk, which means that drivers will not be expecting pedestrian traffic in the middle of a parking lot; and two, if the eastern • parking spaces are relocated to the northwest corner of the lot, the trail would still be located Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2567 Walfred Properties, Continued) between either a driving lane and a series of parking stalls or between two series of parking stalls, which is not an attractive nor safe location for a trail. Gaffron stated he would prefer to see the trail along the northwest edge or along the edge of the parking lot to alleviate safety concerns. Gaffron acknowledged children in the area may attempt to take a shortcut across the parking lot, which could be eliminated in some fashion. Berg stated she is not in favor of the location of the trail proposed by the Park Commission since in her view it is not the best spot for the trail. Hawn inquired whether there was sufficient room for semi-trucks to exit and access this property. Reinen stated the trucks would be going counter-clockwise and should have plenty of room to maneuver. Hawn noted the Planning Commission has already voted on the inclusion of the drugstore use in the B-5 District, and inquired whether another vote on that issue would be necessary. Weinberger stated City Staff would like the Planning Commission to revote on that matter since a revised plan has been submitted. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2567,Walfred Properties, 2380 and 2364 Shadywood Road, 3326 Navarre Lane, and address unassigned • (17-117-23 44 0078),for a commercial site plan review for construction of a Snyder's Drugstore on the Grace Baptist Church site in Navarre, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed structure will be a one-story building; 2. The total parking for the facility will be limited to 60 parking spaces; 3. The trail access will be on the northeast side of the property; 4. The setback along Shadywood Road will be 20 feet; 5. Drugstore use will be a permitted use within the B-5 District; 6. Developer is to take the appropriate steps to make the other trail on the south side inaccessible; 7. Ponding on the property needs to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; 8. Vacation of easements for Navarre Lane; 9. Rezoning of the portion of Navarre Lane which includes the pond to B-5; 10. Lighting, signage, and landscaping plans need to be reviewed and approved by City Engineer; 11. Relocation of utilities subject to review and approval by City Engineer; 12. Developer obtains a signoff from the Homeowner's Association. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Stoddard stated he would like the City Council to address the location of the trail. Stoddard indicated in his view one square foot of signage per square foot of frontage was too intensive for this area and needs to be further reviewed by the City Council. • (Recess taken from 9:03 p.m. -9:10 p.m.) Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#7) #2569 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN AND WILLIAM WALDRON, 1860 FOX STREET, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Due to the absence of the Applicants, this item was not heard at this time and follows Item #13. NEW BUSINESS (#8) #2570 GEORGE STICKNEY, 2590 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE -VARIANCES, 9:10 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. George Stickney, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit construction of a tennis court and a ten foot fence. The Applicant is proposing to construct a tennis court 30 feet from the rear property line where 50 feet is required, and a second variance is required to permit the fence around the tennis court to be 10 feet in height where 6 feet is permitted. Weinberger stated the properties located to the north at 2575 and 2605 Thoroughbred Lane would experience the most impact by the encroachment into the rear yard setback. The tennis court is proposed to be located approximately 235 feet to one of the residences and 270 feet to the other adjoining residence. The tennis court would be located about 20 feet lower than the two residences on Thoroughbred Lane. Generally tennis courts are constructed in a north/south fashion due to the location of the sun in either the east or the west sky. Weinberger stated in order to accommodate a court on this property and properly align the court, it is necessary to encroach 20 feet into the rear yard setback. There is a large portion of the property that is not developed to the rear of the house that could not be used for a tennis court due to the primary mound septic system being located in that are. Weinberger no grading within 20 feet of the septic site is allowed. Weinberger stated the Applicant has addressed the hardship associated with the height of the fence by indicating a six foot fence would not be adequate to contain tennis balls from going outside the court and onto the adjacent properties. Weinberger noted this residence is located close to the end of a cul-de-sac and is not in close proximity to other residences. Stickney stated the two variances he requires are to the setback and to the height of the fence. Stickney stated he is proposing to construct the tennis court at a lower grade which will have lesser impact on the two adjoining residences as well as plant a number of trees in the area as a buffer. Hawn inquired whether he has spoken with any of his neighbors regarding this project. Stickney stated he sent a letter to all the neighbors and has spoken to all but one. Stickney noted he has not heard any negative comments regarding this project. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to reduce the height of the fence at all. Stickney stated with the proposed grade, the tennis court and fence will not be visible to the adjoining residences. Stickney reiterated he will be planting a number of pine trees in this area • to act as screening, and he will provide a planting schedule to Staff prior to meeting with the City Council. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 • (#2570 George Stickney, Continued) Nygard inquired whether any other tennis courts have been constructed in Orono with a fence that exceeds six feet. Weinberger stated it was his understanding there have been some tennis court fences erected that exceed six feet. Weinberger noted a variance is needed for the ten foot fence. Weinberger stated in light of the fact that a variance is being requested, City Staff could require certain types of trees be planted around the tennis court area. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn requested a landscape plan be submitted for review and approval prior to City Council approval. Stickney indicated he would be willing to comply with that request. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2570, George Stickney, 2590 Countryside Drive, granting of a variance to permit construction of a tennis court 30 feet from the rear property line and granting of a variance to permit the fence around the court to be 10 feet in height where 6 feet is permitted, subject to the Applicant submitting a landscape plan for review and approval by City Staff prior to the application being heard by the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Nygard Abstained. • (#9) #2571 DOUG AULT AND JIM GINTHER, 2739 SHADYWOOD ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, 9:21 p.m. -9:35 p.m. The Applicants were not present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit and variance to permit a 'dock lot'for two dock slips within Tract U, and an after-the-fact variance to permit expansion of a parking area constituting additional hardcover within 75 feet of the OHWL of lake Minnetonka. Weinberger indicated the dock lots were created as part of Registered Land Survey No. 415. Currently both Applicants have a 50 percent interest and one dock slip. Weinberger stated the variance to hardcover is required due to the expansion of the existing gravel parking area. Weinberger stated basically the Applicants are requesting a similar conditional use which was previously approved for some of the other lots in the area in 1985. At that time a subdivision occurred in that area where it was assumed that each lot within the subdivision would have a dock lot for storing of a boat. None of the dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby and eventually were sold off separately and are held in private ownership. Weinberger noted Tract U, which is the subject of tonight's application, was recently turned into non-residential ownership. Jim Zimmerman, 2735 Shadywood Road, stated he has some concerns he would like to note on the record. Gaffron stated since the Applicant is not present at this time, and although the neighbors have • waited patiently to comment on this application, he would question the appropriateness of taking comments at this time without the Applicants being present. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 • (#2571 Doug Ault and Jim Ginther, Continued) Hawn stated this situation has occurred in the past where in the end the Planning Commission was advised to take public comment since it was noticed to the public. Lindquist stated it was his understanding of the Planning Commission's past practice to table the application if the Applicant is not present. Hawn commented they are attempting to avoid the need for the neighbors to return more than once by allowing their comments to be heard and be made a part of the record. Lindquist stated they will not be discussing the issues involved in this application, noting that the Planning Commission will be reviewing this item more thoroughly when the Applicant is physically present. Lindquist stated there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed prior to any approval being given on this application, which in all likelihood cannot be resolved tonight without the Applicant being present. Gaffron commented as long as the Planning Commission understands the ground rules of listening to the neighbors' comments and not discussing the issues, it would be appropriate to proceed. Lindquist pointed out that it may be necessary for the neighbors to reappear before the Planning Commission again. Jim Zimmerman stated that he personally, along with Richard Gay, have a number of concerns relating to this request. Zimmerman stated he has been working with City Staff on resolving what the real rights and issues are relating to the non-conforming docks. Zimmerman stated there has been • a continuing escalation of usage of these docks, to the point where they have become second homes to the people who own the docks. For$200 a year, a person may have a 20 foot strip and dock on Lake Minnetonka, which has resulted in people spending the weekend essentially on their boats. Zimmerman stated the purpose of the non-conforming docks was to provide docks to the neighborhood homeowners not on the lake, as well as to provide permanent docks to some of the homeowners on Carman's Bay so that they would not need to put temporary docks on Carman's Bay. Zimmerman stated until the City is able to determine who owns what and what easements have been granted and who has what rights, the City should limit use of these non-conforming docks. Zimmerman indicated they have retained the use of an attorney to review this situation, who is currently working with City Staff and the LMCD in order to resolve some of these unanswered questions. Zimmerman stated they are willing to continue to cooperate with the City in order to resolve these issues. Lindquist stated he appreciates the efforts the local residents are making in this regard, noting that this application needs to go through the whole process. Richard Gay, 2735 Shadywood, inquired whether the property currently is non-residential. Weinberger stated the owners have recently acquired the property and are requesting a conditional use permit. Zimmerman commented the present owners have owned this proeprty for at least the past seven years. • Weinberger stated he was informed by Ault that he has just recently purchased the property. Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2571 Doug Ault and Jim Ginther, Continued) Gaffron noted in 1985, when the other conditional use permits were approved, the City required at that time that people who lived outside the neighborhood to go through a conditional use permit process. Since 1985, the owners of Tract U have resided in the neighborhood, which was then subsequently sold to someone who resides outside the area and has necessitated the request for a conditional use permit. Hawn stated the conditional use being requested is not the same conditional use that has been granted with respect to this variance. Gaffron stated that is correct. Gay stated they are interested in getting a resolution to who has what rights and address any other unresolved issues. Gay stated another issue of concern is a fire hydrant located in close proximity to a driveway which was expanded and parking in that area which would prevent emergency vehicles from accessing that hydrant. John Ericson inquired whether the entire situation relating to the docks will be studied at this time. Hawn stated the Planning Commission will only be reviewing this property at this time. Weinberger stated what makes this a unique situation is that this is a continued use of a dock located on property which has a principal structure and which may have some grandfather rights where the other lots are vacant and do not have a principal structure. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded,to table Application #2571, Doug Ault and Jim Ginther, 2739 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2572 STEVE MORKRID, 2314 SHADYWOD ROAD -VARIANCES, 9:35 p.m. -9:39 p.m. Steve Morkrid, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to remodel the second story and raise the roofline of the existing house, which involves removing the roof and bumping out the walls of the second story, thereby eliminating the dormers. The roofline will be at a slightly different angle and slightly higher than presently exists to help eliminate leaking that presently occurs into the house. Bottenberg noted the structural coverage on the lot will not be changing but requires a variance to allow 26.7 percent lot coverage where 15 percent is allowed. Bottenberg stated the existing hardcover in the 500-1000'setback area is not changing since the footprint of the house is not changing, but a variance to lakeshore hardcover is required because the existing hardcover of 37.11 percent exceeds the allowable 35 percent. A variance is needed to permit a front yard setback of seven feet for the second story expansion where 30 feet is required. Bottenberg noted the existing first story is seven feet from the lot line. • City Staff is recommending approval of the variances. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 (#2572 Steve Morkrid, Continued) Morkrid indicated they would like to add another bedroom to accommodate a new set of twins. Dan Lager, Contractor, stated the proposed addition will help to improve the appearance of the house and eliminate the leaking currently being experienced into the house. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Nygard seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2572, Steve Morkrid, 2314 Shadywood Road, granting of variances to lot coverage, lakeshore hardcover and front yard setback to permit remodeling of the second floor and raising of the roof line, subject to the condition that the existing hardcover, structural coverage and front yard setback not exceed what is currently existing on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2573 DAVID AND MARTI BLODGETT, 1380 REST POINT ROAD -VARIANCE, 9:40 p.m. -9:58 p.m. David Blodgett, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affadavit of Publication were noted. • Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting approval of a height variance for a six feet privacy fence located in the rear yard of a lakeshore lot that does not abut a major thoroughfare. Rest Point Road is not considered a "major thoroughfare". Since the fence exceeds the allowed 3.5 foot height, City Code requires that it meet the rear yard setback of 30 feet. The Applicant has designated on a survey the area requiring variance approval, which is a section beginning from the street lot line and continuing along the southeast side lot line. The fence along the street lot line will not exceed 3.5 feet. Bottenberg stated some posts and some of the fence boards have already been installed, noting the City Building Official did request that the Applicant cease all work until the necessary variance approvals were received. Bottenberg stated in 1989, a height variance for a six foot fence was granted to the property owner at 1374 Rest Point Road, and in 1996, a height variance for a 6 to 6 1/2 foot fence was granted to the property owner at 1375 Rest Point Road. City Staff is recommending approval of a height variance to construct a fence. Blodgett stated where he is requesting the six feet height variance is on the side of the property. Blodgett indicated they had commenced the project in good faith based on some information received from the City, which apparently the City has since changed requiring a 30 foot setback. Kendall Nygard expressed concerns regarding the number of fences being constructed along Rest Point Road and the tunnel effect that is being created. Nygard stated Rest Point Road is a steep and narrow road, with the fence proposed by the Applicant possibly causing a driver's line of vision to be impaired as they come over the hill. • Hawn pointed out the fence in the front will be 3.5 feet in height, with the request for the variance to the fence being constructed on the side property line, which may block a person's view of the Page 21 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 • (#2573 David and Marti Blodgett, Continued) street. Hawn stated in her opinion the majority of the fence should not obstruct a person's view. Stoddard commented it sounds like the City's application forms did not delineate the setback requirements. Bottenberg indicated the information the Applicant is referring to is attached as Exhibit I. Blodgett indicated they would like to construct a fence in order to obtain some privacy and is consistent with the other fences in the neighborhood. Blodgett stated he was attempting to avoid the need for a variance until he was notified of the 30 foot setback requirement. Nygard expressed concerns that the Applicant has commenced to construct a fence which exceeds the City's standards even though he has been informed of the height restrictions. Nygard stated some other issues for consideration is a parking spot that is elevated next to a retaining wall, and a fence would obstruct the vision of a person traveling over the hill if a fence is constructed on top of it. Nygard noted the fence is to be 3.5 feet from the ground level. Blodgett stated his fence posts and boards have not yet been trimmed to meet the 3.5 foot requirement. Nygard inquired where the Applicant was measuring the 3.5 feet from. Blodgett stated the only place he was out of compliance was in that 30 foot section. • Nygard commented it is his opinion there are other sections of the fence that exceed the City's requirements. Hawn stated the building inspector can inspect the fence to see whether it exceeds the City's requirements. Nygard stated all of the boards currently installed by the Applicant exceed 42 inches, noting he has installed 48 inch boards. Nygard stated the fence needs to be measured from the ground level. Lindquist suggested the fence be inspected by the building inspector to insure compliance. Hawn agreed that this matter should be reviewed by the building inspector. Hawn stated it is up to the Planning Commission to give direction to the Applicant on what requirements need to be met regarding his proposed fence and that it is up to the building inspector to see that the requirements are then complied with by the property owner. Blodgett commented he is attempting to have a fence that is consistent with his neighbors.] Hawn expressed regret that the Applicant apparently was not given all the information necessary in order to comply with the setback requirements, noting that there is not ample justification for changing the City standards at this time. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to consider whether this fence will create a tunnel effect along this road. Lindquist stated he has voted for other fences in this area, noting he will support this fence. Lindquist stated the concerns raised are legitimate issues. • Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to recommend denial of Application #2573, David and Page 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 I (#2573 David and Marti Blodgett, Continued) Marti Blodgett, 1380 Rest Point Road,for a height variance to construct a six foot privacy fence located in the rear yard of a lakeshore lot, with the request that the building inspector review and measure the fence to insure compliance with the 3.5 foot requirement. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Lindquist Opposed, Nygard Abstained. (#12) #2574 TOM MICHELETTI, 519 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH -VARIANCES, 9:58 p.m. - 10:13 p.m. Tom Micheletti, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting approval of a height variance to construct a nine foot privacy fence on his property. Since the fence exceeds the allowed six foot height, City Code requires that it meet the side yard setback. The proposed fence will be constructed out of cedar slats and a metal gate on the street side of the house. The Applicant is proposing to construct the fence at nine feet to match the eave height of the house. Bottenberg noted the property is fairly isolated with the neighboring properties being a golf course and DNR protected land. Bottenberg noted the Applicant has relocated the proposed attached garage, which eliminates the need for any variances on that portion of the application. • Micheletti stated he would like to construct a nine foot fence in an effort to address a severe deer problem that he is experiencing with his yard and garden. Micheletti stated he has spoken with representatives from the DNR who have indicated they are not opposed to the fence. Micheletti stated a nine foot fence is needed because deer can easily clear a six foot fence. Micheletti commented he also experiences a lot of golf balls in his yard, which he hopes will be reduced by the nine foot fence. Hawn commented this application is different from the one just heard, but that sight lines are still an issue. Micheletti indicated the fence will be set back from the road 60 feet or something in that neighborhood. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist indicated he does have a problem with a nine foot fence. Nygard commented in his view the fence would appear as a wall in front of the house. Lindquist stated the City's ordinance allows a six foot fence to be constructed. Lindquist acknowledged that a six foot fence may not solve all of the Applicant's problems. Hawn inquired how far into the property the fence would need to be constructed in order to exceed the six foot limit. Gaffron stated the Applicant would need to meet the 30 foot side yard setback and the 50 foot front • yard setback in order to construct a fence that exceeds six feet. Page 23 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2574 Tom Micheletti, Continued) Hawn commented there is a question of setting a precedent if this application is approved. Lindquist moved to recommend approval of Application #2574, Tom Micheletti, 519 Ferndale Road North,for a height variance to permit construction of a nine foot privacy fence. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to consider a seven foot fence. Micheletti stated he has spoken with the DNR who has indicated that deer can clear fences up to eight and a half feet in height. Nygard reiterated approval of this application could possibly set a precedent, and in order to grant a variance, a hardship which is created by the land must be demonstrated. Micheletti stated they are attempting to improve the property and has been told the deer problem is the responsibility of the City. Micheletti commented in order to properly address this problem, they need the cooperation of all parties involved. Hawn noted the Planning Commission did approve a ten foot high fence for a tennis court. Hawn seconded Lindquist's motion based on the fact that this fence is specifically intended to protect a garden which is threatened by the deer population living in an area protected • by the DNR. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Nygard, Stoddard and Berg Opposed. Nygard moved, Berg seconded,to recommend denial of Application #2574, Tom Micheletti, 519 Ferndale Road North,for a height variance to construct a nine foot privacy fence. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Hawn and Lindquist Opposed. Hawn indicated she voted in opposition to the motion recommending denial because in her view there is a specific and reasonable use being requested for the nine foot fence and the same consideration should be given to a fence to deter deer as to a fence for a tennis court. Micheletti commented in his opinion his request was reasonable. Berg noted the Planning Commission is merely a recommending body and that the Applicant has the option of appearing before the City Council to plead his case. Micheletti stated the basic nature of a variance tends to set a precedent. (#13) #2575 JAMES AND JILL CORNELL, 2145 WATERTOWN ROAD -VARIANCE, 10:14 p.m. - 10:17 p.m. James and Jill Cornell, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 816 square foot second story addition to the existing residence. The addition will only be on top of the southern section of the existing residence and not the entire residence. Bottenberg noted the existing residence was constructed before current zoning standards were adopted. The septic system is currently compliant and has • a capacity for four bedrooms. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms. Page 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 • (#2575 James and Jill Cornell, Continued) Bottenberg stated a detached garage was constructed on the property in 1989, which did not require any variances. Structural coverage and hardcover is not an issue on this property. City Staff is recommending approval of the application. Cornell commented the neighbors' view of this addition will be screened. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2575, James and Jill Cornell, 2145 Watertown Road, granting of a variance to permit encroachment into the rear yard setback to allow the construction of an 816 square foot second story addition to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2569 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN AND WILLIAM WALDRON, 1860 FOX STREET- AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Applicants were not present. • Hawn moved, Nygard seconded,to table Application #2569, W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron, 1860 Fox Street, due to the absence of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN (#14) #2576 BRENSHELL HOMES, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Steve Bentley, Brenshell Homes, appeared. Weinberger stated Brenshell Homes has filed a sketch plan to create a four lot subdivision of a 6.87 acre parcel located within the LR-1 B zoning district. Three of the proposed lots would require variances for lot width and direct access to Wildhurst Trail. A fourth lot with access to a driveway located in the platted but undeveloped Garden Lane is also proposed. All lots meet the minimum one acre requirement as shown. Weinberger stated the major issues relating to this proposed subdivision include a major ravine that intersects the north end of the property. The City will be requesting a drainage easement over this ravine. City Staff will also need to review the proposed building pads in relation to the topography to see whether they are suitable. A major portion of this property drains to the south and east, with some concerns about erosion occurring on the east side of Wildhurst Trail due to stormwater flows. Grading and drainage plans must be submitted to City Staff and to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Weinberger stated another issue would relate to whether this should be a private road versus a • public road. Staff does not support direct access for the lots to Wildhurst and has concerns with Page 25 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 • (#2576 Brenshell Homes, Continued) driveways being located on the road when alternative access is available through Garden Lane. City Staff is recommending that all access for the development be via a new road constructed by the developer through Garden Lane with a cul-de-sac serving any lots within direct access. Lindquist inquired whether there will be access to Saga Hill Park from Garden Lane. Weinberger stated at this time Garden Lane could be used as access to the park. Weinberger stated other access and parking to the park has been provided through the property formerly owned by Palmer and the Covenant Church. Weinberger noted he has not reviewed the plan in much detail at this time. Steve Bentley, Prudential Homes, stated he has received a significant amount of information from City Staff relating to prior developments proposed for this site and has revised the plans somewhat to address Staffs concerns. Bentley stated basically they are proposing a road off of Garden Lane for access to this development. Bentley stated they currently have a builder lined up for this project and are very interested in proceeding forward with their proposal. Bentley commented in light of the prior proposals, they are considering the possibility of a lift station and connection to sanitary sewer from Tonkaview Road. Bentley indicated he does not have a problem with any of the issues raised by City Staff and is willing to continue to work with the City to resolve those issues. Bentley stated it is his understanding that park access is through Tonkaview and will not need access off of Garden Lane. Bentley stated they are anticipating the road would become public based upon the comments on the prior applications. Gaffron recommended that the road become a public road, with the cul-de-sac paved diameter being 80 feet. Stoddard inquired what the lot width for each lot would be. Bentley stated a variance to lot width will probably be needed on three of the lots due to the limited amount of frontage available. Gaffron recommended Bentley speak with the Public Works Department regarding sewer connection and the possibility a lift station may not be needed. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer will also be requiring stormwater calculations for this area. Hawn commented she likes the limited amount of driveways being proposed for this subdivision. Hawn indicated there has been some interested expressed in the past for clustering in this area. Bentley indicated he will be obtaining more detailed engineering drawings. Bentley stated he would be willing to look at clustering for this area. Gaffron stated in his view it is doubtful the City Council would grant any building variances. Gaffron suggested the developer do a preliminary sketch showing the clustering as an option. • Bentley stated he will continue to work with City Staff to resolve the issues. Page 26 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 S PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 27, 2000 AND APRIL 10, 2000 This item was not discussed. (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Hawn stated any members of the Planning Commission that would be interested in attending the Sensible Land use Coalition seminar need to register with the City by April 24th. Lindquist reported on the joint meeting with the Long Lake Planning Commission, noting that the meeting went well. A second meeting has been scheduled for sometime in June to discuss how Orono foresees the corridor along Highway 12 being developed. Nygard stated both Planning Commissions are to create a list comparing the two cities for discussion at the next meeting. Gaffron indicated he will create a list for review and comment by the members of the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated the list is to help identify the areas where the two cities agree and disagree. • (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded,to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Stoddard Abstained. (#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 24, 2000 AND MAY 8, 2000 April 24, 2000- Nygard May 8, 2000- Smith ADJOURNMENT Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Elizabet awn, Chair Page 27